There seems to be a healthy demand here on BGG for a low-complexity strategic level game about the American Civil War. The larger marketplace might even be ready for another influx of Civil War games when the 150th anniversary of the conflict arrives in 2011.

In recent weeks I have written several articles about my Civil War block game and published some photographs of the components. I've designed a fast, fun game about the War Between the States that can be played in two hours and has plenty of historical flavor. This article will discuss the method used to recreate battles.

A number of American Civil War strategy games use a separate battlefield matrix to resolve combat between armies. I wanted a "quick and dirty" system that still offered both players strategic choices.

The Basics

This design expands on the concept of "contested" areas used in a classic game by Al Nofi called The Great War 1914-1918. Both players can have units in the same area with neither player exerting control. This idea works well for the Civil War period, especially in the region between Washington and Richmond.

Battle takes place within a contested area and the players use a simple differential (+1, +2, +3, etc.) combat results table. A differential combat system helps to reduce fiddly factor counting and mixes well with my system of battlefield modifiers. Combat results include a defeat for the attacker (causing his units to become disorganized) or a stalemate situation or a retreat for the defender. Defending units which are forced to retreat are disorganized. Formations that are unable to retreat are eliminated. An army that is forced to retreat might suffer a major defeat which has a negative impact on public opinion.

An engagement between forces of relatively equal size will often lead to a defeat for the attacker or a stalemate. An attacking player must have superior strength or make good strategic decisions if he plans to inflict a major defeat on the defender.

Cavalry

Cavalry units can fight alongside infantry formations in a battle; they also have a special reconnaissance function and a limited ability to retreat before combat. In addition, both players may choose to launch cavalry raids during the game. The Confederate player has a larger number of cavalry units and cavalry raiders early in the game but the Union army achieves the same levels by 1864.

This illustration depicts the battle of Stones River in 1862. A Confederate army is attacking a Union force near the town of Murfreesboro. The Confederate infantry units of Polk, Hardee, and Breckinridge with a combined strength of 8 are advancing against the Union XIV, XX, and XXI Corps with a combined strength of 10. This battle would be fought at an unfavorable -2 on the combat results table so the Confederate player has chosen to use a cavalry raid led by Wheeler to increase his chances of success. By using cavalry to strike Federal supply lines the Rebels have shifted the combat differential in their favor. The strategic decision to order a raid is crucial because the number of cavalry leaders available during a turn is limited.

Leaders

Leadership rules should be an important part of any Civil War strategy game. Both sides have blocks representing famous generals that appear during the conflict. The players also roll special leadership dice during every battle, even if a general is present. Any rule that requires both contestants to roll dice during a battle increases player involvement... always a positive feature.

These leadership dice can affect an army's strength and they help to recreate the uncertainty of the Civil War battlefield. Generals sometimes operated at less than full effectiveness; the performance of Lee at Gettysburg might be a good example. A talented general could also be in the wrong place at the wrong time; Grant was away from his army when his troops were attacked at Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Corinth. A mediocre commander might get a lucky break; fortune smiled on Bragg at Chickamauga.

The presence of a leader enhances a player's ability to reform disorganized units and improves an army’s performance in battle. A general always adds his command rating to the strength of an army when attacking or defending. A general may also participate directly in a battle, but this bold action involves great risk.

In this photograph the Confederate player has decided to commit Beauregard to a battle during the defense of Corinth. This action shifts the differential in favor of the Rebels but Beauregard could be removed from the game by an unlucky die roll. Players must carefully evaluate the strategic situation before making the decision to place a leader on the firing line.

Entrenchments

The defending player shifts the combat differential in his favor when any part of his force is entrenched. Entrenchments require a major commitment of command points and manpower. After an entrenchment counter has been placed on the map at least one unit must remain in that area unless the entire army is forced to retreat or the last unit is eliminated. The decision to entrench may require a unit to remain within a fortified area (like Pemberton at Vicksburg) even if the player has other plans for the forces involved.

This image shows a Confederate force entrenched at Charleston. The militia unit that originally garrisoned the region has been eliminated, leaving the D.H. Hill infantry unit holding the entrenchments. This formation must now remain in the Charleston area unless it is relieved by another unit or forced to retreat, depriving the Confederate player of one of his maneuver elements.

Naval Units

Naval forces are represented abstractly in the game. The Union player can shift the differential column in his favor by using a fleet when a Federal unit makes an amphibious landing. The actual sequence of the Union naval assaults is partially dependent on the play of event cards. The Confederate player uses other event cards to build ironclad units during the game; these ironclads strengthen the defenses of coastal areas under attack by the Federals.

This illustration shows a battle at Mobile Bay. An entrenched Confederate militia unit supported by an ironclad is under attack by the Union XIII Corps and the Federal fleet. The defending Rebels would receive two shifts on the combat results table while the attacking Yankee would receive one shift in his favor.

The Aftermath Of Battle

Units that are disorganized after a battle may not attack and have severe restrictions placed on their movement. Shattered units may be reformed if the player chooses to expend additional command points. The presence of a general can enhance a player’s ability to reorganize broken units. A lost battle can have a negative impact on public opinion and this is a crucial element of the game.

Public opinion can be influenced by a wide variety of events including a major defeat, a diplomatic crisis in Europe, conscription, or a setback near the capital. When a nation's political will starts to weaken support for the war declines. As support for the war declines, fewer military units are available to the player.

Looks like some interesting concepts. Price of Freedom IMHO turned out to be great in concept and poor in execution. A House Divided still hold the prize as the best low to medium complexity strategic American Civil War game. Good luck and I would love to playtest it with you sometime.

It looks like you are making use of the fog of war capabilities of your blocks. So my question is what mechanisms you have as a player to assess (at least in part) the strength of an enemy army before comitting to an assualt.

I understand there is the concept of cavalry reconasissance. I'm not an ACW buff but presumably there were many instances where preliminary skirmishes showed that a defender was too strong and the attacker backs off as a result. This could be performed even in the absence of cavalry scouts I would guess.

What you have described so far sounds great. What I really like is the idea that major defeats really hurt in more than one way - especially the public opinion feeding back into new unit recruitment. I think that is going to be very effective at creating the kind of nail biting decisions and feelings the actual leaders must have felt. The one question that comes to mind is how you characterise a major defeat - based on the number of strength points involved or what?

It looks like you are making use of the fog of war capabilities of your blocks. So my question is what mechanisms you have as a player to assess (at least in part) the strength of an enemy army before comitting to an assault.

Good question. By using extra command points a cavalry unit can determine the composition of an enemy force within the same area. This can be done prior to an attack or as part of a defensive strategy to learn the potential strength of an advancing army.

Quote:

I'm not an ACW buff but presumably there were many instances where preliminary skirmishes showed that a defender was too strong and the attacker backs off as a result.

Right. A player attacking an area containing units of unknown strength can suffer a major defeat but he cannot be ambushed like Custer at the Little Bighorn. There are no "attacker eliminated" outcomes on the combat results table. The worst setback that can be inflicted on an attacking force would include all of the attacking units becoming disorganized and the defeated player taking a blow to his public opinion level.

(In game terms, I don't want to inhibit aggressive players who are willing to attack. Nothing slows a Civil War game down to a tepid crawl like rules that punish a player for attacking. Let him attack and take some losses while not risking a game-breaking disaster.)

Quote:

The one question that comes to mind is how you characterise a major defeat - based on the number of strength points involved or what?

Another good question.

Defining a major defeat was one of the most difficult elements of this design. It is not based on the number of strength points involved... there were numerous battles (Mobile Bay, for example) that created big swings in public opinion but involved relatively small numbers of troops.

On the other hand, some large battles that were stunning defeats only caused a ripple in public opinion. After Lee's victory at Chancellorsville (where 60,000 Rebel whipped 120,000 Yankees and Hooker lost over 17,000 men) Lincoln cried out, "My God, my God! What will the country say? What will the country say?" The country accepted Chancellorsville as another confusing episode in a long series of Union defeats in Virginia. Hooker was not removed immediately and the Army of the Potomac shrugged off these casualties (and the loss of several thousand men due to expired enlistments... army recruiting had slowed down in 1863) as the troops moved north to challenge Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania.

Therefore, a major defeat can occur on a somewhat arbitrary basis when a player gets into the upper and lower ranges of the effects caused by those command dice that I mentioned earlier. In addition, the Union player can automatically suffer a loss of public opinion if a Confederate force enters northern territory (for example, the area around Washington D.C.) and the Federal army does not respond immeditately.

A public opinion crisis for either player means less support for the war with fewer units available for service. This results in direct losses to formations already on the board or an even greater decline in public opinion when the government increases conscription.

Therefore, a major defeat can occur on a somewhat arbitrary basis when a player gets into the upper and lower ranges of the effects caused by those command dice that I mentioned earlier. In addition, the Union player can automatically suffer a loss of public opinion if a Confederate force enters northern territory (for example, the area around Washington D.C.) and the Federal army does not respond immeditately.

That makes sense, however I would have thought that the larger the forces involved, the greater the chance of a defeat turning major. I guess that could translate as an extension of the major-defeat-causing upper and lower ranges you mentioned when large numbers of units are involved. Perhaps more fiddly than you wanted but I think it would increase the tension of comitting to a major battle.

...I would have thought that the larger the forces involved, the greater the chance of a defeat turning major...

You have raised a valid point. This was one of the challenges of developing the "major defeat" rules.

This might be the common perception among wargame players -- the larger the forces involved in a battle, the greater the chance for a major defeat. This does seem quite logical.

Please allow me to share some of the historical background behind the major defeat rule.

During the American Civil War it was difficult to crush a large army in a pitched battle. A smaller force might be driven from a battlefield but the big formations had too much resilience. When a large army was defeated (like the Army of the Potomac at Fredericksburg in 1862 or Chancellorsville in 1863) the impact on public opinion might seem to be severe at first but it could fade quickly.

On the other hand, campaigns involving relatively small numbers of troops often had an influence on public opinion that went far beyond the casualty figures.

The Red River Campaign of 1864 was an embarassing Union failure and led to bitter finger-pointing that ended military careers. This offensive involved about 30,000 Federals facing a smaller number of Confederate troops.

Another good example would be the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864. Sheridan defeated Early and his Rebel army with just a fraction of the Union forces in the Virginia theater while the main army under Grant was bogged down at Petersburg.

In both of these situations things could have gone much worse for the Union. The humiliating Federal defeat in the 1864 Red River Campaign could have turned into a terrible disaster if the Union ironclad fleet hadn't escaped after nearly being captured by Confederate cavalry! Many historians believe that Sheridan's victory in the Shenandoah Valley (a campaign which could easily have ended in another stalemate) was a major factor in Lincoln's reelection.

Let me conclude by saying this: it would difficult to link a "major victory" outcome to the size of the forces involved. However, if the average playtester just can't get his mind around the rule as it is written I may have to make some changes.

Pete, your responses make plenty of sense, but your answer uses the word 'campaign' alot. Is 'campaign' a concept embodied in your rules, or are all combats effectively a loose cloud of weakly linked conflicts, any one of which could suddenly turn critical at the roll of the dice?

I have some ideas forming in my head already, but I'll wait for your response before voicing them.

Is 'campaign' a concept embodied in your rules, or are all combats effectively a loose cloud of weakly linked conflicts, any one of which could suddenly turn critical at the roll of the dice?

I am using "campaign" and "battle" interchangeably. Sorry about the confusion. Each battle is resolved separately but combining two or more battles into multiple hammer blows is much more effective than a stop-and-start strategy.

A player can create more opportunities for inflicting a "major defeat" by making good strategic choices (throwing more infantry into action, ordering a cavalry raid, adding a general to the battle, etc.) but your basic assumption is correct: in some cases the difference between a defeat and a major defeat depends on how both players roll the leadership dice.

Quote:

I have some ideas forming in my head already, but I'll wait for your response before voicing them.

In this instance it seems that the public opinion outcomes might end up being rather too random. Only playtesting will tell for sure, but in the event of there being too much chaos you could consider a mechanic which works the other way around.

E.g. public opinion first 'attaches' itself randomly to one or more battles, perhaps on a regular but less frequent basis than players individual block moves.

Then, players get to decide whether to try and win the battles which have immediate tactical relevance ot to court public opinion.

This idea may not work within your existing rules and play sequence, but it follows an important design principle that some designers feel is useful:

"randomisation first, decision point afterward".

as opposed to making a decision followed by a random outcome. The former leaves the player with more feeling of control without loosing the essential friction provided by the dice.

...it seems that the public opinion outcomes might end up being rather too random.

Yes, that is a problem.

I may have to ditch the whole major defeat idea. I can't seem to visualize a non-random method of giving the players a hint that one particular upcoming battle will affect public opinion more than another.

The event cards and victory conditions cover larger issues like the Emancipation Proclamation, opening the Mississippi River, or raising the Federal flag over Texas to challenge Napoleon III and his French interlopers in Mexico.

There were at least two points during the war when Lincoln knew the poop was about to hit the fan.

Lincoln was facing Congressional elections in the fall of 1862, which is why he waited until after the ballots were cast to remove McClellan. This is partially covered by an event card.

In 1864 Lincoln desperately needed a victory or two before the presidential election. My game ends after the 1864 election. If Lincoln isn't the winner, the South is victorious.

Davis didn't face a presidential election. He was hoping to impress the European powers in the summer of 1862... although that element is covered in the diplomatic crisis rules.

I love all games on the War of Northern Agression. I think your ideas look good (I would not add morale rules, opportunity fire, or any of those other things that muck up too many US Civil War games). I do like random events though, if you could add a table for them. And variant counters are fun as well.My favorites of this genre are: Mr. Lincoln's War (Army of the Potomac/Tennessee)---3W Battle Cry---AH/WotC Across Five Aprils---VG Blue Gray Quads---SPI/TSR/Dec

[I may have to ditch the whole major defeat idea. I can't seem to visualize a non-random method of giving the players a hint that one particular upcoming battle will affect public opinion more than another.

I think that would be a shame. One idea that springs to mind is to have say three sets of command dice per player, coloured differently. The different sets could then embody different focus of public opinion. The player would rotate his command dice set according to some simple mechanic.

If you could get a situation where a player knows - if I try this battle now, this turn,then I'm taking a risk because I'm holding the RED command dice. I could leave it till next turn when I'm holding the GREEN comamnd dice, but the rebs may manage to escape in the meantime....

It's rather abstract but at least gives some feeling of the constraints the real leaders were under. You could simply have one set of dice rotating or you could have dice sets that rotate randomly or semi-randomly by geographical region. You wouldn't actually need to swap the dice over - a coloured chit on the board could show which dice you need to use for any given area at any time. You wouldn't even need differently coloured dice - you could use extra CRTs instead.

The key is that the player can trade off the risks and rewards beofre rolling.

Dan: Thanks for the suggestion. I like your idea better than the mostly random method I had developed. Perhaps there could be a sort of "Red Alert" regarding public opinion that would inform both players that the next defeat will have an especially heavy impact on public opinion. The chances of this happening would increase during the Fall 1862 turns (because of the U.S. Congressional elections) and the Fall 1864 turns.

Each side (but particularly the Union player) would know that the threat of a public opinion crisis is hanging over their leaders like the Sword of Damocles.

The Confederate player would also be motivated to smite the Yankees while their national morale is fluctuating. This would create another risk/reward dilemma for the Rebels, adding more tension to the game.

The more you describe the game - The more interested I become in your design. I've enjoyed the forum threads where you have used us as a sounding board.

I've cherry picked comments from the thread for commentary.

Quote:

Battle takes place within a contested area and the players use a simple differential (+1, +2, +3, etc.) combat results table.

I like the idea of a differential calculation - in many (most?) engagements the forces involved were comparable, at least until late in the war.This goes with the next point when a force was outnumbered - many generals would not commit to an engagement (Joe Johnston - come to mind), so it took an audacious commander to commit.

Quote:

These leadership dice can affect an army's strength and they help to recreate the uncertainty of the Civil War battlefield. Generals sometimes operated at less than full effectiveness;

As you pointed out sometimes a "lesser light" will have a good day. This is an adjustment you must to make, since the fellow with the most battalions didn't always win.

Quote:

Public opinion can be influenced by a wide variety of events including a major defeat, a diplomatic crisis in Europe, conscription, or a setback near the capital.

I may have to ditch the whole major defeat idea. I can't seem to visualize a non-random method of giving the players a hint that one particular upcoming battle will affect public opinion more than another.

Perhaps there could be a sort of "Red Alert" regarding public opinion that would inform both players that the next defeat will have an especially heavy impact on public opinion.

This is a component I would like to see remain in your design, since it is missing from so many strategic games.

The "Red Alert" could be a string of reversals - as each battle is a defeat or stalemate - the next battle or a capture of a vital point - becomes more important for you to win.

Red River campaign may have had such a large impact since it was the first of the new season (1864) and the public may have viewed it as "more of the same" - looking at the stalemates at the end of 1863 rather than the summer successes.Fredricksburg was followed up by a success at Murfreesboro.

The morale factor also holds for the Confederate side - I view the victories at the 7 Days and Chickamauga as important as any in the war. Think about the alternatives.If McClellan had bashed his way into Richmond in May 62, would this on top of the reversals in Tennessee, Shiloh and New Orleans, collapsed Confederate morale? My God - leads to the next thought - Would McClellan then have won the 1864 election as the man who restored the Union?! I suppose a union victory at Chickamauga would have meant United States would have had the Rosecrans tank in WWII.

One more suggestion if I may: I really would encourage you to build a cyberboard implementation of your prototype. If you did so I would be happy to assist with playtesting - as I'm sure would many others now you have generated some interest.

a CB prototype also has the advantages of being easily changed, and actually probably quicker to implement than the real thing. You may not have used cyberboard before (as a designer) but I can assure you it is much, much easier than you probably imagine!

CB has all the features you need to replicate the hidden info aspects of your blocks, as well as the event card deck. All you will need to do is get your map scanned - the rest of the block images can also be re-created very easily since they appear to be very simple.

The cards would take the vast majority of the time - however that could be solved initially by simply emailing the text of a card to players along with the CB turn file. Since the cards will likely undergo more tweaking than any other aspect of the game this might make alot of sense initially.

Having looked at your game images I would expect I could knock a rough version of the whole thing (apart from the cards) up in say 2 days max. it might take you a little longer, but not too much.